William Pitt and the Great War by John Holland Rose (book club reads txt) 📕

his Hercules"--such are a few of the rhetorical

gems which occasionally sparkled in the dull quartz of his plentiful

output. Nevertheless, so manly was his bearing, so dogged his defence,

that he always gained a respectful hearing; and supporters of the

Government plucked up heart when, after a display of dazzling rhetoric

by Grattan or Plunket, the young aristocrat drew up his tall figure,

squared his chest, flung open his coat, and plunged into the unequal

contest. Courage and tenacity win their reward; and in these qualities

Castlereagh had no superior. It is said that on one occasion he

determined to end a fight between two mastiffs, and, though badly

bitten, he effected his purpose. These virile powers marked him out for

promotion; and during the illness of Pelham, Chief Secretary at Dublin,

Castlereagh discharged his duties. Cornwallis urged that he should have

the appointment; and to the King's initial objection that a Briton ought

to hold it, Cornwallis successfully replied that Castlereagh was "so

very unlike an Irishman" that the office would be safe in his hands.

Castlereagh received the appointment early in November 1798. He, the

first Irishman to hold it, was destined to overthrow the Irish

Parliament.[542]

 

We must now revert to the negotiations between Pitt and Clare. It is

surprising to find Clare convinced that the Prime Minister would keep

faithful to the Protestant cause its unfaithful champion, Loughborough,

also that Cornwallis had acquiesced in the shelving of Catholic

Emancipation. Probably Clare had the faculty, not uncommon in

strong-willed men, of reading his thoughts into the words of others. For

Cornwallis, writing to Pitt on 8th October, just after saying farewell

to Clare at Dublin, describes him as a well-intentioned man, but blind

to the absolute dependence of Irish Protestants on British support and

resolutely opposed to the admission of Romanists to the united

Parliament. As to himself, Cornwallis pens these noble words: "I

certainly wish that England could now make a Union with the Irish

nation, instead of making it with a party in Ireland"; and he expresses

the hope that with fair treatment the Roman Catholics will soon become

loyal subjects. Writing to the Duke of Portland in the same sense,

Cornwallis shows a slight diffidence in his ability to judge of the

chief question at issue.

 

Probably the solution of the riddle is here to be found. It seems that

the Lord Lieutenant was politely deferential to Clare; that at Holwood

Clare represented him as a convert to the ultra-Protestant tenets; and

that Pitt accepted the statements of the Irish Chancellor. William

Elliot, Under-Secretary at War at Dublin, who saw Pitt a week later,

found him disinclined to further the Catholic claims at the present

juncture, though equally resolved not to bar the way for the future.

Possibly the King now intervened. It is a significant fact that Clare

expected to have an interview with him before returning to Ireland. If

so, he must have strengthened his earlier resolve. Pitt, then, gave way

on the question of the admission of Dissenters and Catholics to the

Irish Parliament. But he kept open the more important question of the

admission of Catholics to the United Parliament. Obviously, the latter

comprised the former; and it was likely to arouse the fears of the Irish

Protestants far less. On tactical grounds alone the change of procedure

was desirable. It is therefore difficult to see why Elliot so deeply

deplored his surrender to the ultra-Protestants. Pitt had the approval

of Grenville, who, owing to the religious feuds embittered by the

Rebellion, deprecated the imposition of the Catholic claims on the

fiercely Protestant Assembly at Dublin.[543] Yet he warmly supported

them in the United Parliament, both in 1801 and 1807.

 

The next of the Protestant champions whom Pitt saw was Foster, Speaker

of the Irish House of Commons, whose forceful will, narrow but resolute

religious beliefs, and mercantile connections gave him an influence

second only to that of Clare. In the course of a long conversation with

him about 15th November, Pitt found him frank in his opinions,

decidedly opposed to the Union, but not so fixedly as to preclude all

hope of arrangement. On this topic Pitt dilated in a "private" letter of

17th November, to Cornwallis:

 

    ... I think I may venture to say that he [Foster] will not

    obstruct the measure; and I rather hope if it can be made

    palatable to him personally (which I believe it may) that he

    will give it fair support. It would, as it seems to me, be worth

    while for this purpose, to hold out to him the prospect of a

    British peerage, with (if possible) some ostensible situation,

    and a provision for life to which he would be naturally entitled

    on quitting the Chair. Beresford and Parnell do not say much on

    the general measure, but I think both, or at least the former

    against trying it, but both disposed to concur when they

    understand it is finally resolved on. They all seem clearly (and

    I believe sincerely) of opinion that it will not be wise to

    announce it as a decided measure from authority, till time has

    been given for communication to all leading individuals and for

    disposing the public mind. On this account we have omitted all

    reference to the subject in the King's Speech; and the

    communication may in all respects be more conveniently made by a

    separate message when the Irish Parliament is sitting, and it

    can be announced to them at the same time. In the interval

    previous to your Session there will, I trust, be full

    opportunity for communication and arrangement with individuals,

    on which I am inclined to believe the success of the measure

    will wholly depend. You will observe that in what relates to the

    oaths to be taken by members of the United Parliament, the plan

    which we have sent copies the precedent I mentioned in a former

    letter of the Scotch Union; and on the grounds I before

    mentioned, I own I think this leaves the Catholic Question on

    the only footing on which it can safely be placed. Mr. Elliott

    when he brought me your letter, stated very strongly all the

    arguments which he thought ought to induce us to admit the

    Catholics to Parliament, and office; but I confess he did not

    satisfy me of the practicability of such a measure at this time,

    or of the propriety of attempting it. With respect to a

    provision for the Catholic clergy, and some arrangement

    respecting tithes, I am happy to find an uniform opinion in

    favor of the proposal, among all the Irish I have seen; and I am

    more and more convinced that those measures, with some effectual

    mode to enforce the residence of _all_ ranks of the Protestant

    clergy, offer the best chance of gradually putting an end to the

    evils most felt in Ireland.[544]

 

The suggestion that Foster's opposition might be obviated by the

promise of a peerage emanated first from Camden. Its adoption by Pitt

marks the first step in the by-paths of bribery on which he now entered.

In this case his action is not indefensible; for the abolition of the

Speakership at Dublin naturally involved some indemnity. Besides, in

that Parliament no important measure passed without bribery. That eager

democrat, Hamilton Rowan, foresaw in the Union "the downfall of one of

the most corrupt assemblies I believe ever existed." The proprietors of

the pocket-boroughs were needy and grasping, some of them living by the

sale of presentation of seats. Government generally managed to control

them, but only on condition of dispensing favours proportionate to the

importance of the suitor and the corruptness of the occasion. As

Beresford remarked with unconscious humour, the borough-mongers "cannot

be expected to give up their interest for nothing; and those who bought

their seats cannot be expected to give up their term for nothing." Here

he expressed the general conviction of that age, which Pitt recognized

in his Reform Bill of 1785 by seeking to indemnify the borough-holders

of Great Britain.

 

A typical specimen of the borough-owner was that "ill-tempered, violent

fellow," Lord Downshire, who controlled the Crown patronage in the North

by virtue of his seven borough seats. Lord Ely had six seats; and the

Duke of Devonshire, and Lords Abercorn, Belmore, Clifden, Granard, and

Shannon, four apiece. In the counties, Downshire, the Ponsonbys, and the

Beresfords controlled about twenty seats. Camden, writing to Pitt on

11th August 1799, thus described Downshire: "He is not personally

corrupt; but the larger the compensation for the boroughs is to be, the

more readily will he listen to you or Lord Castlereagh."[545] Lord

Longueville, a borough-owner of great influence in County Cork, wrote as

follows to Pitt on 3rd December, 1798:

 

    ... Long attached to you, and confirmed in that attachment for

    life by the direction and advice of Lord Westmorland, I have now

    no object to look up to, to prevent my falling a sacrifice to my

    political enemies, but to you. When Lord Shannon opposed your

    measures, I spent £30,000 of my own money to frustrate his

    intentions and support your measures. I shall now act by your

    advice and opinion on this great business of a Union with Great

    Britain. My friends are numerous and firm; they look up to you

    for decision on every occasion. My interest in Ireland is

    extensive. I wish to be a British peer before the measure of a

    Union takes place, or after. I wish the city of Cork to have two

    members, Bantry one and Mallow one.

 

Longueville gained his desire and the patronage of the Revenue offices

in Cork City.[546] From Pitt's letter to Cornwallis it is clear that he

believed that the promise of Government stipends for the Catholic

clergy, and a reform in tithes would induce them to support the Union.

But it seems impossible to reconcile his statement as to Beresford's

opposition to the Union with the assertion of the latter, that, in an

interview of 12th November, he pressed Pitt to take immediate steps to

ensure the success of the measure, which otherwise would have to

struggle against unfair odds at Dublin. The curious tendency of

Hibernian affairs towards confusion also appears in Cornwallis's

statement, on 15th November, that he had urged Pitt not to close the

door to the Catholics in the United Parliament. Whereas Pitt was

resolved to admit them at an early opportunity.[547]

 

On the various interests at stake there is in the Pretyman archives a

long but undated Memorandum, with notes at the side by Pitt, or perhaps

by Grenville; for their writing, when cramped, was similar. It

recommends that the precedent of the Union with the Scottish Parliament

shall be followed where possible; that few changes shall be made in the

Irish legal system, appeals being allowed to the Irish Lord Chancellor

and three chief judges, who may also deal with evidence for

parliamentary and private Bills affecting Ireland. The general aim

should be to lessen the expense of resort to the United Parliament for

private business. Pitt here added at the side--"Particularly in divorces

and exchange of lands in settlement," also in certain "private" Bills.

The compiler then refers to the difficulty of assessing or equalizing

the Revenues, National Debts, and the fiscal systems of the two islands,

but suggests that on the last topic Pitt's Irish proposals of 1785 shall

be followed. To this Pitt assents, suggesting also that the proportions

of Revenue and Debt may soon be arranged provisionally, Commissioners

being appointed to discuss the future and definitive quotas. Further,

Pitt expresses the desire to model the election of Irish peers on that

of Scottish peers. The compiler of the plan advises a delegation of 40

Irish peers, and not less than 120 Commoners to Westminster; but, as

electoral changes are highly dangerous to both countries, he drafts a

scheme by which either 125 or 138 Irish Commoners will sit in the United

Parliament.[548]

 

Here Pitt and his colleagues differed from their adviser. Probably they

heard rumours of the fears aroused by the advent of Irish members. The

repose of Lord Sheffield was troubled by thoughts of the irruption of

"100 wild Irishmen"; and he deemed the arrival of 75 quite sufficient,

if staid country gentlemen were not to be scared away from St.

Stephen's. By way of compromise the Cabinet fixed the number at 100 on

or before 25th November 1798.[549] At that date Portland also informed

Cornwallis that the number of Irish Peers at Westminster must not exceed

32.

 

Meanwhile, the tangle at Dublin was becoming hopeless. There, as

Beresford warned Pitt, the report of the proposed Union was the letting

out of water. Captain Saurin, an eminent counsel who was commander of a

corps of lawyers nick-named the Devil's Own, insisted on parading his

battalion